The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our jelly backed PM > Comments

Our jelly backed PM : Comments

By Greg Barns, published 23/10/2008

Mr Rudd is looking jelly backed on the matter of the death penalty. His moral conviction has been put to the test and he has buckled.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Rudd might still think that the death penalty is wrong “…in all circumstances and in all jurisdictions”. That is his opinion, and he has some say in the matter in Australia. But, not in other jurisdictions; so this is no point in him saying any more or trying to influence the Indonesians.

I suggest that he would be very, very stupid if he did try to intervene in the well-deserved executions of Bali bombers. Any PM who did try to anything at all to save the murderous animals who slaughtered 88 Australians would not survive the ire of the electorate.

The “principled moral position” referred to by Barns concerns his own warped and well known lack of concern for victims. The most recent example of his siding with the bad guys was his petulant outburst about the ‘human rights’ of recently convicted terror planners here.
The rubbish of Julian McMahon’s that he quotes: ““executing the Bali bombers we are giving them what they want - martyrdom, glory and hero-status. Instead, the better deterrent, the more effective punishment, the thing they don’t want, is life imprisonment”, has now worn see-through thin.

The Bali bombers don’t want martyrdom; they want their lives, and they have now run out of appeals proving that they are not interested in martyrdom. Barns, McMahon and others of their kind totally ignore the fact that these cowardly little creeps have been fighting for life, not martyrdom!

And, if McMahon believes that Rudd would win respect in our region, as Barns claims he said, by sticking his nose into the affairs of other countries on the death penalty, he is as barking mad.
The more terrorists we put to death, the fewer there will be.

Martyrdom is too fine a label to put on unhinged mass murderers. It has no meaning to them
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 23 October 2008 9:20:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Right has made some very pertinent/valid points in your response to Greg’s article.
Rudd can have any personal opinion he wants (I agree with him on this issue) but here he is representing Australia. As such he has to take a longer view Indonesia is a sovereign nation and as no Australians lives/interests are at stake he needs to be cautious.

I’m sure Greg would know that the Indonesian hierarchy are well aware of Rudd’s opinions and appreciate his dilemma and his silence in this “Indonesian internal affair” (they’re not stupid or
ill-ilformed.

I’m not sure I accept the point that Rudd should pander to the survivor’s natural desire for revenge. I can’t see that killing the bombers is justice nor can I see that it resolves anything more than a life in jail.

Indonesia would I have no doubt have their own ‘bigger’ reasons for dispensing this type of justice. Keep in mind also we are dealing with a:
- Different Country
- Different Religions
- Different Cultures
- Different Ethnicities
- Different mind sets (moral imperatives) and therefore views of the world.
- Internal Security issues. The hierarchy undoubtedly believe they can’t have individuals running around bombing to further their points of view.
- Different Circumstances With 200million people, rampant poverty etc they can’t AFFORD this type of internal event particularly when it may affect the much needed foreign exchange. To a country like Indonesia foreign exchange is a matter of life and death for many families.
- One of the logical issues with any sort of mass aggregation is the tyranny of sheer numbers i.e. a ethnic etc group of 2 million people is still only 1% of the population…That’s a lot of potential loose cannons.
The argument about false messages is dubious one in this context.
(NB. I am NOT making excuses only emphasising that we aren’t facing the same circumstances they are and as such don’t really understand them or their problems).
Rudd with his NATIONAL responsibilities has to tread careful and be selective on issues he takes up on OUR BEHALF.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:11:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The central issue here as I see it is not the right or wrong pertaining to the death penalty. The real issue is the extent to which our representatives interfere with or comment on the affairs of other nations. The death penalty is a remnant of more barbaric times that thankfully have passed into history in this country, but is still very much on the agenda elesewhere - the USA springs to mind. If Mr rudd is expected to protest the legally sanctioned death penalty for the reprehensible (and obviously insane) Bali bombers, why stop there? The state of Texas for example executes about one person every three weeks - whilst he was governor of that state George Bush signed a great many death warrants. Is Kevin Rudd expected to comment on that as well?
Australia's position on the death penalty is well known - leave it at that. The Iraq disaster provides sufficient example of the possible penalty for interfering in other countries and cultures.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Thursday, 23 October 2008 3:16:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am concerned that our Prime Minister
is expressing a private opinion so publicly
on such a controversial matter as the
Death Penalty.

The Bali bombings were a premeditated crime.
One in which the offenders did not expect to
get caught or punished. They still don't,
according to the appeals that have been put
in place on their behalf - by their lawyers.

They clearly don't see themselves as "willing
to die" for their cause. They are however quite
willing to kill others for it.

Yet, they were caught and tried in their
own courts. They were found guilty, and were sentenced
to death under their own system of justice.

It does appear however, that their courts have
allowed an elaborate appeals system which suggests
that these convicted murderers will never be executed.

However, our Prime Minister should let
their system of justice prevail. He should keep his
personal views to himself.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 23 October 2008 3:40:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all suffer the death penality at some stage in our lives.Some people through their actions just deserve to bring it on prematurely.If there are no serious consequences for behaviour that threatens the destruction of our civilisation,then we will all disappear up our own fundamental orifices.

This philosophy should include the likes of George Bush,and the CEOs that brought on the sub-prime mortage debacle.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 23 October 2008 6:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article, Greg. I agree with every point you've made, and must say I'm somewhat surprised at some of the previous responses.

The death penalty is wrong whatever the circumstances. Kevin Rudd, as the leader of, supposedly, a progressive party and, supposedly, an advanced and civilised nation, should be speaking out against the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned revenge killing at every chance, regardless of whose toes he might tread on in the process. To do otherwise, is gutless and wrong, especially in the light of his earlier statements, when it suited him politically to be seen as a man of principle.

GYM-FISH

"Australia's position on the death penalty is well known - leave it at that."

'Leaving it at that' as you say is a spineless response. If leaders of conviction are to effect change on serious human rights issues, they need to restate their position firmly and calmly at every opportunity. To remain silent, if your position is well known, is to be seen as weak and acquiescent. And more importantly, it passes up an opportunity to further the cause and move another step closer to bringing about change.

"The Iraq disaster provides sufficient example of the possible penalty for interfering in other countries and cultures."

This comparison is totally invalid. Speaking up against a wrong is very different to illegally invading another country.

examinator

"One of the logical issues with any sort of mass aggregation is the tyranny of sheer numbers i.e. a ethnic etc group of 2 million people is still only 1% of the population…That’s a lot of potential loose cannons."

Yes, from a purely pragmatic point of view, that is a lot of loose cannons, and they will become mightily unstuck if this planned execution is carried out. A great percentage of Indonesians are Muslim, and many of these are disaffected if not extremist. Not only will this action incite their anger, it will give them three instant martyrs to further promote the cause of radical extremism.

Rudd's failure to speak up is lacking in judgement from both a humanist and a regional security viewpoint.
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:25:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy